WTF??!! WMD's after all!!!!

[JoeB131]

Well Saddam didn't kill all those Kurds with his good looks.

I never thought he had nuclear weapons but I knew he had chemical because he used them on the Kurds.

He also ingnored the UN after his Kuwait debacle.

I didn't agree with invading Iraq but I could understand it. WMD's aren't anything to take lightly especially when in the hands of a psycho like Saddam and his minions.

Again, we are the only country that has ever used Nukes on People.

I think us lecturing anyone on weapons is a bit like Paris Hilton calling someone a whore.

Here's the thing. Chemical Weapons are not that big of a deal. By the end of WWI, they had developed effective countermeasures against them.

Saddam used them against the Kurds, and Reagan didn't make a big deal. Because it wasn't. Most of the Kurds who died (while Reagan looked the other way) were killed with conventional weapons.

Saddam didn't use chemical weapons during the Gulf War either against us or the Zionists, becuase he knew he'd face horrific consequences if he did.

 

[Care4all]

New York Times lead today........

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Should tell every board member here........the government, no matter who is in charge, is lying to us every single day!!!

Yes we did know they had chemical weapons, but they are not in any way...

....us waking up to the smoking gun being a MUSHROOM CLOUD

WMD's.

nukes.

THAT is what got America, near 100% behind the President.

==========================================
I agree, it's horrible that these guys as far back as 2004 have suffered GREATLY, by our gvt not recognizing their injuries from this.....just despicable.

 

[deltex1]

When you are determined to go to war, one of the first things you do is demonize your enemy. (Bush) When you are not determined to go to war you coddle/minimize your enemy. ( Obama) What is so hard to grasp?

 

[JoeB131]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

 

[JoeB131]

When you are determined to go to war, one of the first things you do is demonize your enemy. (Bush) When you are not determined to go to war you coddle/minimize your enemy. ( Obama) What is so hard to grasp?

How about actually taking a cold rational look at the enemy and make a good judgement call if he really is a threat to you?

The countries in the Region can't agree amongst themselves that ISIL is a threat, yet we are supposed to?

 

[deltex1]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

We had enough troops. We just did not have the will to let them kill Iraqis.

 

[bodecea]

This old chestnut again?

 

[deltex1]

When you are determined to go to war, one of the first things you do is demonize your enemy. (Bush) When you are not determined to go to war you coddle/minimize your enemy. ( Obama) What is so hard to grasp?

How about actually taking a cold rational look at the enemy and make a good judgement call if he really is a threat to you?

The countries in the Region can't agree amongst themselves that ISIL is a threat, yet we are supposed to?

You vote in leaders. They decide. They try to sell their decisions. Just like going to a car dealership.

 

[JoeB131]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

We had enough troops. We just did not have the will to let them kill Iraqis.

We killed 130,000 to 1 million Iraqis. What we didn't do was secure the country.

 

[deltex1]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

We had enough troops. We just did not have the will to let them kill Iraqis.

We killed 130,000 to 1 million Iraqis. What we didn't do was secure the country.

I agree...and to do that we had to disarm them and prevent chaos. How could we have done that? By slaughtering any one who stood againSt. us. We need to learn to do that.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Well Saddam didn't kill all those Kurds with his good looks.

I never thought he had nuclear weapons but I knew he had chemical because he used them on the Kurds.

He also ingnored the UN after his Kuwait debacle.

I didn't agree with invading Iraq but I could understand it. WMD's aren't anything to take lightly especially when in the hands of a psycho like Saddam and his minions.

Exactly, people forget we went into Iraq because saddam ignored and outright violated UN sanctions.

 

[zeke]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

We had enough troops. We just did not have the will to let them kill Iraqis.

We killed 130,000 to 1 million Iraqis. What we didn't do was secure the country.

I agree...and to do that we had to disarm them and prevent chaos. How could we have done that? By slaughtering any one who stood againSt. us. We need to learn to do that.

So invading countries that didn't attack us and then killing EVERYBODY in that country who stood against being invaded, this is something you think we need to learn to do eh?

Hey maybe our government can use those great tactics against us citizens as well. You good with that? I mean If we have a corrupt enough government that we invade countries that didn't attack us, kill as many as we can, how long before those very same tactics are used against the citizens of this country that oppose that kind of action?
Being so successful and all.

Seeing as how you want this country to act just like those ME countries and those countries have no problem killing their own, it would just be a matter of time before our government was killing our own people.

And you support those actions. Or you think that is something we would never ever do to our own people.
And I thought we would never invade a country that didn't attack us.

 

[zeke]

Well Saddam didn't kill all those Kurds with his good looks.

I never thought he had nuclear weapons but I knew he had chemical because he used them on the Kurds.

He also ingnored the UN after his Kuwait debacle.

I didn't agree with invading Iraq but I could understand it. WMD's aren't anything to take lightly especially when in the hands of a psycho like Saddam and his minions.

Exactly, people forget we went into Iraq because saddam ignored and outright violated UN sanctions.

Bullshit., We invaded Iraq because George Bush and Co. WANTED to invade Iraq. George Bush SOLD the American people on the supposed NEED to invade. Which turned out to be a real con job as opposed to a good sales job.

And you like being duped by our own President didn't you?

 

[sameech]

Is there much difference between a WMD and an ordinary weapon?

 

[deltex1]

I have always believed we had the larger intention to reverse the trend toward terror and dictators in the ME. The wmd and sanctions and inspectors et al were peripheral to the larger goal. We picked Saddam to make our point. We didn't get the job done because we are not cruel enough. We don't understand the mindset of the Muzzie. We still don't.

 

[deltex1]

Well Saddam didn't kill all those Kurds with his good looks.

I never thought he had nuclear weapons but I knew he had chemical because he used them on the Kurds.

He also ingnored the UN after his Kuwait debacle.

I didn't agree with invading Iraq but I could understand it. WMD's aren't anything to take lightly especially when in the hands of a psycho like Saddam and his minions.

Exactly, people forget we went into Iraq because saddam ignored and outright violated UN sanctions.

Bullshit., We invaded Iraq because George Bush and Co. WANTED to invade Iraq. George Bush SOLD the American people on the supposed NEED to invade. Which turned out to be a real con job as opposed to a good sales job.

And you like being duped by our own President didn't you?

I have no problem with what you said....but you are being duped now in the opposite direction.

 

[deltex1]

One more point. It wasn't just that Bush misled on the threat Saddam posed, it was that he ineptly carried out the policy.

He went in with 150,000 troops when the Generals told him that he needed at least 500,000. But he didn't want to start a draft or try to get the allies on board.

Even worse, he made the decision to disband the Iraq Army, which pretty much meant that groups like ISIL had a large pool of disaffected young Sunni men to recruit.

We had enough troops. We just did not have the will to let them kill Iraqis.

We killed 130,000 to 1 million Iraqis. What we didn't do was secure the country.

I agree...and to do that we had to disarm them and prevent chaos. How could we have done that? By slaughtering any one who stood againSt. us. We need to learn to do that.

So invading countries that didn't attack us and then killing EVERYBODY in that country who stood against being invaded, this is something you think we need to learn to do eh?

Hey maybe our government can use those great tactics against us citizens as well. You good with that? I mean If we have a corrupt enough government that we invade countries that didn't attack us, kill as many as we can, how long before those very same tactics are used against the citizens of this country that oppose that kind of action?
Being so successful and all.

Seeing as how you want this country to act just like those ME countries and those countries have no problem killing their own, it would just be a matter of time before our government was killing our own people.

And you support those actions. Or you think that is something we would never ever do to our own people.
And I thought we would never invade a country that didn't attack us.

You are getting emotional, GERTRUDE. Not here for that.

 

[depotoo]

09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)

“We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. … His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.” (presentation to Congress)

10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President

“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

 

[depotoo]

And the cry of Bush lied, people died, was so loud, and the reporting of anything found being pushed to the last page,vwith a 1/4" write up, people missed it. And once again, the cry is Bush lied. Bullshit.

 

[Conservative65]

Sorry, but Gomer Bush and his henchmen/woman claimed there was an ACTIVE chemical and nuclear weapons program not a bunch of crap leftover from the 1980s. This stuff wasn`t a threat to the U.S.

That's like saying that a nuclear bomb like the ones dropped on Japan in 1945 wouldn't be a threat today because they are old.